Apple claims Samsung broke the law by selling a black, thin, rectangular phone with buttons. Apple filed the suit after its products proved unable to compete with Android in sales. (Source: Sizzle Core)

The pair's legal battle stretches over eight courts in six different countries. (Source: Foss Law)

Apple is also hurting Samsung by cutting off component sales. Apple is one of the company's largest component electronics purchasers; for example, the first gen. iPad used a Samsung CPU/SDRAM, Samsung NAND flash, and a Samsung LCD display. (Source: iFixIt)

Company is also battering rival with component boycott

South Korea's Samsung Electronics (SEO:005930) may be poised to become the world's largest smartphone maker, passing Finland's Nokia Oyj. (HEL:NOK1V), but life isn't all sunshine and roses for the gadget maker. The company faces serious danger on at least two fronts.

I. Apple Goes for Samsung's Jugular in Patent Dispute

Rival gadget maker Apple Inc. (AAPL) is hoping that a court will give it a kill shot on Samsung. Apple has filed [Scribd] for preliminary injunction that could force Samsung to take its flagship Android products -- the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- off the market in the U.S.

If granted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the injunction could force Samsung into a massive settlement payout with Apple -- which again would be a major loss, and could interfere with product development.

While Apple's April 15 lawsuit (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) and June 22 lawsuit (South Korea's Seoul Central District Court) cite a broad range of patents, the injunction request only includes four.

Three of the patents -- U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677, D593,087, and D504,889 -- lay claim to the shape, color, and button placement on the iPhone case. Apple claims that Samsung's phones look too much like the iPhone in that they are small, thin black rectangles with buttons.

A fourth patent actually deals with technology, U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381. It deals with methods of "list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display."

A request for a preliminary injunction (PI) is a bold move in a lawsuit, as it will only be granted if the court considers the case strong. Apple is fond of the tactic, but has found it to backfire at times. For example, while a court granted it a PI against Mac-clone maker Psystar, a more recent request in its case against Amazon.com, Inc.'s (AMZN) use of the term "Appstore" was rejected.

A PI rejection, while not decisive to the overall case, can be damaging, in so much as it gives the impression that the overall case is weak.

Samsung is hardly rolling over, though. In the last week it filed suit against London-based High Court of England and Wales and Italy. These suits join pending lawsuits in Seoul, South Korea, Tokyo, Japan, Mannheim, Germany and the U.S. (Delaware). Samsung is suing Apple in eight different courts [Scribd] in six different countries. It's also expanded the number of U.S. patents involved to 17. It's also using many foreign patents against Apple.

The company has filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) to try to block the imports of iPads, iPods, and iPhones. While not as rapid as a PI request, the filing could block imports of the devices within 16 to 18 months.

Apple resorted to lawsuits and legal harassment in desperation, after its smart phones proved incapable of competing effectively with Android. Android currently has more than twice the market share of Apple's iOS.

II. Parts Sales Offer More Woes

Even as Samsung scrambles to maintain its legal war with Apple, it's facing a serious logistics crisis, as well.

Samsung's head of its recently combined semiconductors and display units, Kwon Oh-hyun states, "In the past, the semiconductor market tended to be weaker in the first half and stronger in the second half, but for this year, it is likely to remain flat throughout the latter half."

This is very bad news for the company as a whole, as these units drive 70 percent of Samsung's profits and 44 percent of its total revenue, typically.

It's unclear whether Apple's growing boycott on the company's components is to blame for the drop, but it's clearly playing a major role.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: Likewise for those that worked especially hard to come up with such ideas.

I can only imagine the man-hours, the creativity, hard work, money and originality employed within.

There's a lot of misinformation here, so let me just share some facts with you all.

quote: Apple claims that Samsung's phones look too much like the iPhone in that they are small, thin black rectangles with buttons.

FACT:Apple was the FIRST smart phone maker to create a large screen, black, rectangular smart phone without a keyboard. As is proper it filed for design protections, under U.S. laws and was granted those protections.

Android manufacturers thought they could violate laws and manufacture similar designs. Apple properly filed a complaint with U.S. courts.

This is no different than if GM decided it was going to start producing Mustangs or if Ford tried to rip off Cadillac.

FACT:Samsung has tried to legally harass Apple by filing numerous countersuits, rather than agree to license the company's iconic smart phone design.

quote: Apple resorted to lawsuits and legal harassment in desperation, after its smart phones proved incapable of competing effectively with Android. Android currently has more than twice the market share of Apple's iOS.

Wrong and pathetic.

FACT:Apple is the world's largest tech company (MICK, you wrote this yourself... market cap, remember?), and has out innovated its competitors, including Samsung.

FACT:Apple sold a record number of iPhones in the last quarter and has more apps and developers than Android. Apple's sales are slightly lower as it does not sell budget phones like Android.

Nobody is suggesting Apple ripped off LG; they are just making the point that the opposite argument is BS. In reality, such a vague idea "black, rectangular thing" isn't worth patent protection, so nobody is ripping off anyone.

US patents are based on date of conception with accompanying proof, not on the filing date and not on the first public release. The patent must be filed, however, within one year of first public release or the invention will become public domain. Thus, this discussion and the provided evidence are somewhat irrelevant. (EU patents are based on filing date.)

Apple was indeed the first to market with a black rectangular device of this kind.

Previous PDAs were much bulkier and often had keyboards.

Apple invented the thin black smart phone and was subsequently ripped off by cheap Android knockoffs. Sales today would be even better, if it was for this shameless copycat antics. Fortunately, the iPhone is still selling great regardless.

The U.S. Government SAYS Apple owns the rights to thin black smart phones, so you'll either have to pay Apple licensing fees or you can't make that product.

The patent would actually define such things quantitatively, usually in a range. They could have broadened it even more by saying "smaller than" a given thickness. Black and rectangle are also definable. That's why patent lawyers make a lot of money, although it's a mind-numbing process to define such things in such a way to ward off infringement.

The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada,[1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2] Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.[3] An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on January 18, 2007.[1] It was the first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen. LG Prada sold 1 million units[4][5] in the first 18 months.[6]

A second version of the phone, the LG Prada II (KF900) was announced October 13, 2008. It was released December 2008.

its not a ripoff its a completely different device that shares a common form factor. that’s it

and if you want to get down to it the patent office is broken and im sure paid off because both Nokia & RIM were making small rectangular phones with buttons for years before apple even entered the market

quote: You can argue with me all you want, but the U.S. GOVERNMENT says YOU'RE wrong.

The government hasn't said anything at all. All they did was file a patent that someone requested. Once someone sues in court to question the validity of the patent, a court will then rule whether that patent is valid or not.

The U.S. government says your wrong is your best argument? No more debating for you sir. Besides you can file a patent on/for anything. Billions get approved that shouldnt and millions get thrown out later in lawyer fests like this Read up Mr. high six figure salary. BTW posting your income on a tech site? Bashing someone who posts in a second language? Makes you sound like a kid further discrediting your arguments. Sounds more like Apple desperation to me. Android is killing Apple in overall sales on smart phones. No one maker has to be more profitable. The success of them all is what Apple is finding hard to compete with. Overly broad patent will be tossed.

quote: FACT: Apple is the world's largest tech company (MICK, you wrote this yourself... market cap, remember?), and has out innovated its competitors, including Samsung.

Wrong.

Samsung is MUCH larger.Samsung usually tugs along with 150+ Billion dollars in revenue and over 250k+ employees.Granted they are a conglomerate corporation, but the majority of their business is tech related.

Apple...65 Billion dollars in revenue and about only 50k employees in comparison.

It's like the old "wives tales" I used to hear about where Microsoft was the largest company in the world, which was never true, just like that "fact" you claim.

Generally speaking, when people such as economists, commentators, journalists, politicians, and many others refer to the size of a company, generally they are referring to the market capitalization of a company.

And the analogy still partly holds up. Samsung isn't trying to say "it's an iPhone" with the Galaxy S, it's trying to convince someone in the store that it's enough like an iPhone that it'll be a good substitute. Similar home button (which is not a common Android design trait) and a non-stock Android interface deliberately made to look like Apple's. Last fall, you should've heard how many Verizon store reps were saying "no, we don't have the iPhone, but get this Samsung Fascinate -- it's just like an iPhone."

Apple started the lawsuits, but anyone who believes pure-as-snow, innocent Samsung was attacked solely because its products were just too good is kidding himself.

The important thing is that the design is fairly obvious and Apple wasn't the only thinking of it.

The example you give of convincing someone that a product is a decent substitute is fine. It's convincing someone that a product IS another product that's not acceptable.

quote: Apple started the lawsuits, but anyone who believes pure-as-snow, innocent Samsung was attacked solely because its products were just too good is kidding himself.

I believe Apple started the suit in order to slow down adoption of a competing product by using a legal tactic that's well suited to the current legal and competitive environment. Believing any large business is "white as snow" is silly...

quote: This is no different than if GM decided it was going to start producing Mustangs or if Ford tried to rip off Cadillac.

Yes, this is different than your example. Samsung never claimed to be producing iPhones. Your analogy would work if you said that GM decided to produce a competitor to the Mustang that was rear wheel drive, sporty, and contained a V8 engine.

Are you serious? The original iPhone was launched in July 2008. The HTC Touch, a "black slab" touchscreen phone with a soft keyboard and one button at the bottom in the same position as Apple's iPhone home key, launched in June 2007. HTC was almost a year early with their model.

quote: FACT: Apple is the world's largest tech company (MICK, you wrote this yourself... market cap, remember?), and has out innovated its competitors, including Samsung.

Oh, please. Market value is just one way to measure and it tells nothing about innovation.

Here is one example on how Samsung is much more than Apple. Today they signed a contract for two drillships worth $1.3 Billion which Maersk has ordered. It takes selling a lot of phones to hit $1.3 Billion and that is just an example.

A possible way to measure innovation might be to count patents. Lets look at 2010 which should be a great year for Apple and see how they did. With regards to US patents Apple was awarded 563 patents making them number 46 on the list however in all fairness they did much better than the year before (in fact up 94%). But now guess where Samsung came in? No, they were not number 1 they only came second behind IBM still Samsung was awarded 4,551 US patents. Look at those numbers and included that Samsung is: A. Is routinely found at the top of the annually awarded patent list. And B. Not a US company but based in South Korea where they do a lot we don't even see like for instance how South Korea is way ahead with the advanced use of phones and tech as a whole.

MacDevDude wrote:Apple was the FIRST smart phone maker to create a large screen, black, rectangular smart phone without a keyboard. As is proper it filed for design protections, under U.S. laws and was granted those protections.

What do you expect from Samsung? Rational behavior? Samsung does the same phones as everyone else, they just use marketing predatory tactics to fool Samsung tards into believing that Samsung logo is everything, product quality is nothing. The Internet is full of stories of Samsung failures and product glitches, their quality is abysmal. Samsung got what they deserved.

quote: The Internet is full of stories of Samsung failures and product glitches, their quality is abysmal.

*GASP!*

Have you looked at Samsung's Televisions? They're pure sex appeal.Wait... Your God/Master of the fruitiest fruits doesn't make Televisions!Heck the Hardware in the Macs, iPad, iPhone and iPod aren't even of Apple design, they're designs that are done by other companies. (CPU = Intel/Arm, Screens = Samsung etc')

All they do is put it into a neat cute wittle package and put a shiny sticker on it for you to worship before going to bed.

quote: The hardware in the Samsung TVs isn't even of Samsung design, they're designs that are done by other companies. (chips made by TI, capacitors made by Nippon Co, etc)

That's pretty much how the entire industry works. Nobody builds the whole thing from scratch. When a company makes a chip, such as a scaler or a mpeg decoder chip, they release a reference design which others can copy. They do this to make it easier to incorporate their chips into a design. And what electronics maker makes their own resistors and capacitors to use in a product? Do you think Apple makes discrete components to use in its products? have you ever seen an Apple brand capacitor?

quote: All they do is put their TV a neat cute package and put a shiny sticker on it for you to worship before going to bed.

This is what everyone does, including Apple. When you buy a MacBook pro, do you think you're getting an Apple CPU, Apple memory, Apple hard discs, etc? They use commonly available components just like everyone else does.

You realize that is pretty much what Apple does too right? All Apple does is buy everything from other companies, they even have other companies put it together, hell they don't even put the shiny sticker on there another company does it for them and then they sell it.

The internet is full of stories about products failing by any major companies on the globe. With a company making so many things like Samsung and touching so many people there are bound to be some unhappy customers.

Also just seeing the amount of BS being posted here it's clear some Apple fanboys aren't beyond fabricating lies about Samsung.

I like my Apple but it is getting more and more so that I am keeping that fact to my self, since I'd rather not be seen as a fan because they are often both sad and crazy.

Samsung also had samples of this puppy out before the iPhone. Granted it's an MP3 player, but proof that Samsung was going for the "thin, black, rectangular" look before Apple even showed up for the party.

I lol'ed when I read this. It's not that they are small rectangular black devices with buttons, it is that as of the Galaxy S range, Samsung started to ape the iPhone 3GS design quite obviously, even down to the choice of sync cable. Whilst one might suppose that it's fairly obvious, in hindsight, that a touch screen phone looks like the iPhone, if you recall what phones looked like before the iPhone like all those HTC Windows devices, there's a gulf of difference. Anyone who doesn't see this needs their eyes testing. Button placement, design of the back, curved corners, individually they are small commonalities, but together, it's very obvious that they were copied.

This was a deliberate tactic, I feel because Samsung could see people passing on their devices, in favour of the iPhone at the time. However since then, the Galaxy S2 can proudly stand toe to toe with the iPhone, so it's sad that they feel they need to copy Apple's design so closely. I think a lot of this stems from a difference in approach between the west and Asia to Intellectual property specifically relating to design.

The only true winner with all these legal arm wrestling matches........The Lawyers. Greedy Bas ards make money running up the hours meter. I say we start exporting all the lawyers and get back to using common sense.

quote: Apple resorted to lawsuits and legal harassment in desperation, after its smart phones proved incapable of competing effectively with Android.

This seems completely out of place in this article. There's no way this claim can be made any authority. I dislike Apple as a company as much as the next guy, but the iPhone is clearly the best-selling single smartphone on the market, at least in the United States. It takes all of the available Android phones to top the iPhone in terms of operating systems in service.

Apple is likely suing to protect their sole device design, which is iconic to Apple, they'd argue. While I think it's ridiculous to have a design patent granted to the iPhone that covers "thin black rectangle with buttons", Apple's just protecting their brand.

Claiming Apple is suing because it can't effectively compete with Android is outlandish; Apple is competing strongly with a single device against an army of hundreds.

It's very fashionable to hate big successful companies on DT these days, they used to hate MS, now they hate Apple, tomorrow they hate Google or Facebook or what not. All these basement dwellers like Motoman & Co will never change, trust me on that. I know DT public very well, it's always like this.

Maybe it's that the most distinctive feature of apple products is making their owners feel like it's acceptible to suck themselves off in public. Seriously, it isn't acceptable to butt into an argument just to give one side a substance-free literary blowjob. That's the sort of airs that really annoy rational people.

quote: it's that the most distinctive feature of apple products is making their owners feel like it's acceptible to suck themselves off in public

I know a few Apple hardware owners and I know for sure you are a liar just like Motoman. Only a minority of Apple hardware owners are brain washed Apple logo worshiping zombies like you describe, most are normal guys like you and me, maybe even like Motoman.

Most Apple customers don't care about defending Apple, because most customers of anything don't care about defending it.

Of those that DO speak up for Apple, they tend to have a greater fervency and blind passion for the subject than those fans that do speak up about other subjects they enjoy. Only vocal sports fans are as stubborn or prone to flights of fancy or mystical rationalizations.

What Apple is doing in this case is disgusting. They could have shat pure gold for a thousand years before, and continue doing so a thousand years hence, doesn't matter, that doesn't change the fact that the company's actions against Samsung are stupid, and certainly highlight the problems with patent corporate warfare these days.

quote: I don't need some envirowhacko like you telling me what to buy.

Whose telling you what to buy? You asked why would anyone have a dislike for a successful company such as Apple. I merely pointed out possible reasons. Besides, from your attitude of your posts in this article, Apple devices appear to suit you perfectly.

quote: By your logic any successful business is "bad"... why do you hate the free market so much?

It might come as a surprise to you, but not all successful companies completely shun their social responsibilities. A free market has rules and regulations that it must abide by. Apple's success has somehow made themselves believe they are above all of that.

Samsung regularly "punishes" companies that dare to offer competition in its home country. KT (a local carrier) mysteriously got sub-par support for its Samsung phones the moment it was clear the iPhone was clobbering the Omnia in sales. And as arguably the biggest of the "blessed" corporations in Korea, it can get away with corruption and influence of the kind that brought Enron down in the US.

There's an anti-Apple myth that persists: that Apple, and only Apple, can do wrong, while everyone it competes against is a bastion of openness, sunshine, and light. So while you go and buy a Galaxy S II in protest, just remember how Samsung is squashing choice in its home country.

The only way "Apple, and only Apple, can do wrong" is a myth is if myth = "something I just made up to make myself feel better". (FYI, generally, that's not what people mean by myth).

Arguing that Apple can do wrong is very different from arguing that only Apple can do wrong. Have you really seen someone on here saying that Apple is the only company that can do wrong? I haven't, and I also haven't seen anyone arguing that Samsung is a bastion of light (maybe you should cut back on the World of Warcraft :).

Don't feel sorry for Apple they may be alone but they have a fanbase much bigger than anyone else, also have you heard the saying divide to conquer!On the Android real, you have dozens of brands and each brand has dozens of smartphones, it may seem a good thing to have a choice but in the end it only makes harder to chose the right phone. The worst point with the Android phones however is that you can't update it to the latest android OS when available... I still see plenty of phones on version 2.1 and 2.2!

quote: The worst point with the Android phones however is that you can't update it to the latest android OS when available

That's not the Android's problem, that's the problem of idiots who chose to buy second grade crap instead of Google Nexus which is officially supported by Google with timely updates for years after release. I wouldn't blame Android for the idiocy of those who buy crap instead of proper hardware. Would you?

Idiots? idiots for buying phones with better hardware and better looks? idiots for thinking that Samsung, LG, HTC and the like should at least update there less than a year old phones? even the 3GS has the latest iOS...

Of all the Android phones, Samsung phones and UI is the closest to copying iOS. Korean engineering in general spends on manufacturing and less in R&D. Why invent, just copy.

Is it coincidence that TouchWhiz UI is so similar to iOS?

Right now Android is ripe for litigation because Google did not patent nor licensed any tech on the get go and you see patent awarded to Apple because their filing was done before the iPhone was released.

Soon, the biggest lawsuit will be filed against all Android device maker because Google copied many parts of iPhone after Apple's iPhone release and behind the patent filings.

Exactly: Apple isn't all that different from other companies in actual practice, they just differ in specific tactics and design.

Their products can fail, like any other company's. Their product support can falter, like any other company's. Their products can come with major glitches or bugs with hackneyed fixes provided, just like any other company's.

Yet Apple isn't treated by the paying public or the media as "any other company". Apple has deliberately and expertly crafted a market presence that's "special". Crafting such a facade works for some consumers, and not so well with others, and often foments antagonism in that latter case.

They just know more than anyone else how to attract the consumer and how to make big money fast in the consumer electronics market, this is the only special thing about them.

quote: Crafting such a facade works for some consumers, and not so well with others, and often foments antagonism in that latter case.

Yeah, a lot of basement dwellers (Motoman type folks) love to harp on the rich ones and scream about them being bad guys and shit. They screamed about MS, Apple, Google, what not. Successful rich company is always a big juicy target. "Crafting facade" my ass... you better start your own business and try to craft shit like this before babbling about others, loser.

quote: Apple claims Samsung broke the law by selling a black, thin, rectangular phone with buttons.

While I completely disagree with this lawsuit and hope Apple loses, this is a deliberately biased summary of what Apple is doing. Nowhere does Apple say they are suing because it is a black, thin, rectangular phone with buttons. They are suing because Samsung has created a phone that is nearly identical to the iPhone in those particular aspects.

Again, I certainly believe Samsung has the right to do what they did. But let's not create strawmen when there are plenty of real issues to debate here.

There are many thin, black, rectangular phones with buttons that are not the subject of lawsuits...

you're really not helping your case here. if there's a rational argument to be had on behalf of apple, then present it. apple deserves to have logical, sane, rational fans defend it with formal, concrete thinking and analysis. it certainly needs some to save it from the deluge of public backlash against the uppity, pretentious, overpriced, lackluster-performance image that apple has with the techno-literate crowd.

unfortunately, apple usually seems to have only two types of fans, those who remain quiet....and those who (while quite verbal) cannot assemble any compelling argument for apple.

you see, rational debate is where facts and figures are exhanged by both parties--and conjecture, bias and irrationality are exposed. apple doesn't have many (if any) proponents that can engage in rational debate. i can't say if this is due to lack of trying or lack of ability to do so--but it is quite noteworthy.

on the plus side, you're clearly a troll, and not an astroturfer like macdevdude; although that really only like the difference between a pet rock and a chia pet.

How can you have rational debate with mentally ill Apple haters like Motoman? My approach always works since I talk the language of the opponent. If he's an idiot I'd never talk rational, since talking rational with an idiot is a waste of time.

well...black phone...one button...touch screen, thin...how many people respond with something other than Apple iPhone?

It's very naive to think that other phone makers didn't purposely do this just to piggy back off the iPhone "visual identity".

You can argue more features and whatever you want until the cows come home, but to sell masses...you go with what works, and there is a definite possibility that by making it look similar to apples, they just leeched some recognition.

quote: It's very naive to think that other phone makers didn't purposely do this just to piggy back off the iPhone "visual identity".

...it's far more naive for you to be falling for Apple's BS here. The general shape, size, and layout of all cellphones is dictated by their usage. Or do you honestly expect someone to be producing cellphones with giant spikes coming out of them, or that are perfect round spheres maybe?

hey.... Samsung has been making their own CEL-PHONES many many years before the iPhone was even an idea at apple.

All cell-phones are thin small plastic devices, always getting thinner and smaller.

Samsung could almost just cut-off APPLE's supply of components.

Lets see... Samsung makes displays, memory, CPUs, controller chips, communications chips... and phones for years. They don't need to copy the iPhone. In no way, do I view my Samsung phone as an iPhone clone.

As much as I hate Apple, I have to disagree. The iPhone really pushed Samsung's rapid development of smart phones. There was a lot of talk within the company about developing iPhone competitors while I was there. They definitely compete with LG, but Samsung is always considered the top company with LG coming in 2nd place as a cheaper alternative in Korea. Furthermore, LG smart phones were such a dismal failure that the president of the LG cell phone company within the conglomerate was canned not too long ago, although they have improved since then.

LG has done a great job with marketing in the US to make themselves seem more on par and sometimes even better than Samsung, although the perception has shifted more to the favor of Samsung in recent years even in the US. While most Koreans disagree with me, I think LG might overtake Samsung for the top spot some day in part due to Samsung's blind arrogance against their local competition.

You can get a patent on the look of an object. This is called a Design Patent. This prevents competitors from directly copying the physical form.

Look it up on Wikipedia. It does a decent job explaining what a Design patent covers....and doesn't. For example, the Coca-Cola bottle is iconic, and was patented. This however did not prevent Pepsi Co from making a clear bottle with similar shape, however they just couldn't use the ridges other features that Coke defined. Design patents don't let you patent common objects. You can't patent a thin rectangle with screen and a button. You can patent a rectangle that has certain dimensions, button placement and overall look. The intent is to prevent competitors from directly coping the "look". Keep in mind.....Directly copying. They can't stop everyone from making a bottle because Coke defined the ridges in the bottle.

The burden on recieving a Design patent is signifigantly lower than a technology patent. I know, because I have several. Because this burden of proof is so low, courts are very apt to overturning said patents. Show the court one prior artwork and it's game over.

Overall, this patent lawsuit will go nowhere. Prior art dictates otherwise. There were black phones before iPhone. There were full screen touch devices before iPhone. Thinness isn't definable. My old Dell Axim x51V was black, had a full touch screen with single large button centered on the front face below the screen. WinMo phones were similar.

Despite the fanboy responses both ways here, issuance of a patent by the US means little. Apple has now taken the step to defend it's patent, which IMHO is a terrible move. Invalidation of thier patent could open the floodgates to a swath of clones.

But that's not why Apple is doing this. They want some IP collateral to counter Samsung's claims. Soon, they'll work out an IP sharing arrangement and both companies will be holding hands again.

Let's just be happy that Apple didn't get similar patents for desktop products. Imagine not being able to use a "black rectangular box housing a processor attached to a display device" or "a desktop environment with shortcuts to frequently used applications or files" or even "a small icon that can be moved by a user with a mouse that is used to select various elements of the GUI."

It's just ridiculous that they can get away with patenting such vague and frankly non-inventive processes in the mobile arena.

He does buy Apple in those cases where the Apple product is the best product at an affordable price.

I do the same ... the result is that my desktop and laptop computers are generics or an occasional off lease name brand running Microsoft Windows and Linux. These give me a lower hardware cost, high reliability & the largest software selection in most categories

I do own an IPod Touch 64GB due to one Windows software package that had bonus material that was iOS only.

Should I ever have a need for a software package that is Mac only, then I will likely add a Mac to my computer collection.

To put it bluntly I do not buy the brand, I buy the support for the software I use at the best price I can find with quality I find acceptable.

If you are buying the brand without considering price or utility you are very likely wasting money.

quote: Three of the patents -- U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677, D593,087, and D504,889 -- lay claim to the shape, color, and button placement on the iPhone case. Apple claims that Samsung's phones look too much like the iPhone in that they are small, thin black rectangles with buttons

I'm going to sue all auto manufacturers because my ancient ancestor invented the wheel which is round and all car wheels are round.

Not a small amount, but I doubt it'd kill Samsung for Apple to boycott their components for a short period of time (just remember how big Samsung is). If anything, the shortage of Apple products will fuel interest in Samsung's own product lines. If this drags on, who says it will really hurt Samsung? Apple seriously cannot expect to source the necessary components to keep throwing out i-devices, and this might even have a knock-on effect on the launch of the iPhone 5 (well, 4GS). Time will tell.

As for this article... well, it's less news and more personal opinion, though I'm not too surprised by that.

When the F&%k are all these people going to stop this crap and go back to producing products, you know, the core business. Starve the lawyers I say. Tech companies are becoming patent trolls in their own right and the only ones smiling are the lawyers. We, the consumers are the losers as we are the ones funding these jet setting corporate mouthpieces.